Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Monster Rain wrote:An ironic statement, considering this whole line of conversation started with someone calling an entire classification of people "sociopathic a-holes."

No it isn't. Some children develop faster than others, some children are trained better than others, etc. But most everyone starts at the same spot behaviorally, a needy little kid that wants everything and is willing to manipulate anyone without shame in any way possible to obtain anything that it desires, and doesn't understand the concepts of scarcity and sharing-- traits which in adults would be classified as mentally defective and in desperate need of counseling.

Melissia wrote:And during that age, many schoolchildren still haven't fully developed a conscience or respect others, with only the particularly well raised ones having done so. Disrespect isn't illegal, but it is something that should be discouraged, I think.

At what point do they develop that respect for others then? It was demanded of me before I even hit third grade and the children that this law should be affecting should be well over such age. As you point out only the well raised ones develop such respect early on but then I ask, what causes this? General parental enforcement? If so then shouldn't the parents also be the ones magnifying the respect to All other regardless of orientation? So that should instill tolerance on the well raised ones while the ones who develop later are forced to learn from their peers, having either learned or not learned such respect, and teachers, who by fact of being a teacher should be a role model, showing tolerance to all.

What I'm trying to get to here is that no matter the upbringing it is ultimately going to fall on either the personal biases of the parents or teachers as to how children learn tolerance, in the developmental years, and since teachers are rotated out every year the parents influence is magnified. This law, to me, seems nothing more then a point on which the anti-gay community can rabble around shouting 'gay agenda'

If you think I'm way off though please feel free to say why

I think there's a difference between being sociopathic and being brat. Just saying.

Yes, Brats get a smack across their mouth, sociopaths become pariahs who deserve isolation. If they refuse to change, they will stay isolated. If they decide to stop being fething donkey-caves, then maybe they'll learn how to act as rational beings.

Azure wrote:As you point out only the well raised ones develop such respect early on but then I ask, what causes this? General parental enforcement? If so then shouldn't the parents also be the ones magnifying the respect to All other regardless of orientation?

Yes, but that just leads to parent bashing, and do we really want to get into that in this thread?

Children mimic their surroundings, in a household where the mother cooks and cleans the daughter will tend to believe that they should cook and clean. In role ambiguous families the children will tend to split duties because that's how they think it should be.

An anecdote of this would be the story of a family who had a mother who was in the military and a stay at home father; one day the father was pretending to march around and the daughter said that he was acting like a girl.

Family settings are very important in the development of a child's actions, schools can help but generally the home is where they learn.

As far as children being sociopaths, not so much. Children can be sociopaths but its far less likely. There's a psychological test that involves having children watch videos of three different types of behaviors; aggressive, passive, and ambiguous.

Typically children will identify aggressive(shoving a person) as aggressive and passive as passive(person being nice to another), the ambiguous one is where its all decided.

Socially aggressive children see it as aggression(a person bumping into another person) while most children see it as ambiguous.

Now I'm all for teaching the whole story of history, but I don't see much need for this, mostly because gay people were forced to be very secretive about their sexuality throughout history. This makes it hard for us today to identify past people as gay. Please add others, but the best example of gay history I can think of is Mr. Turing, the genius code-cracker and pioneering computer-man. His efforts greatly helped the Allies, and he belongs in history books. I don't see much other use for this act. In my American History class, we learned about the Stonewall Protests and other movements for equal rights.

Melissia wrote:Except that they, by necessity, must do so in order to ensure a friendly learning environment for all students, not merely for the racists/misogynists/antisemites/homophobes/etc.

Why do you need a friendly learning environment? I submit that a teacher standing there with a taser and a sign that reads "get an A or get the stick," would do wonders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fafnir wrote:"Today kids, we're going to watch a movie"

The teacher puts in a video of Margaret Cho.

One student laughs.

Thats student is then beaten to death.
"Excellent," says the teacher. "Now that we've culled the herd and seen the concept of Social Darwinism first hand, we can now discuss why teacher unions are awesome and how much I hate you all."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

micahaphone wrote:Now I'm all for teaching the whole story of history, but I don't see much need for this, mostly because gay people were forced to be very secretive about their sexuality throughout history. This makes it hard for us today to identify past people as gay. Please add others, but the best example of gay history I can think of is Mr. Turing, the genius code-cracker and pioneering computer-man. His efforts greatly helped the Allies, and he belongs in history books. I don't see much other use for this act. In my American History class, we learned about the Stonewall Protests and other movements for equal rights.

See I'm ok with that.

Frazzled wrote:Why do you need a friendly learning environment? I submit that a teacher standing there with a taser and a sign that reads "get an A or get the stick," would do wonders.

Amusing, but not helpful to actually learn. The best way to make sure someone learns is to make them enjoy learning.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why do you need a friendly learning environment? I submit that a teacher standing there with a taser and a sign that reads "get an A or get the stick," would do wonders.

Amusing, but not helpful to actually learn. The best way to make sure someone learns is to make them enjoy learning.

Do gooder nonsense that fits right along with the mantra "everyone's a winner!"

Learn or die. Chang's still building phased plasma rifles.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why do you need a friendly learning environment? I submit that a teacher standing there with a taser and a sign that reads "get an A or get the stick," would do wonders.

Amusing, but not helpful to actually learn. The best way to make sure someone learns is to make them enjoy learning.

Enjoy learning... with forced social lessons.

If this legislation was about protecting children from rough-housing and enforcement of school policies against gay-bashing, then there'd be no problem.
But this legislation is all about "Gays are awesome, and if your parents say otherwise they are bigots! If you want an A in this class you have to agree with this state sponsored position!"

This would be no different than if I was forced to attend a born-again class that told me my religious views are wrong because I interpret the bible differently. It does not belong in school.

Frazzled wrote:
Why do you need a friendly learning environment? I submit that a teacher standing there with a taser and a sign that reads "get an A or get the stick," would do wonders.

As a trainee lecturer, we're taught that Fear and Stress actually inhibit learning to a degree by the way they affect the brain. Stress being the worst as it continues after the event. Annoyingly I can't find a nice comprehensive arcticle on it anywhere, though this may work http://www.livestrong.com/article/156872-how-fight-or-flight-affects-the-learning-of-children/ .

Though they also taught us we're not allowed to use the word fail, which I heavily disagreed with.

Out of curiosity, have you read about "The Tiger Mother"? It's a book where a Chinese mother is in America with her American husband, but insists on raising the students in a "Chinese" way. One event that stood out to me was how at the age of 3, the child was given a small piano and forced to repeat the mother exactly. When she inevitably refused, the mother put her outside into the cold and left her there. Eventually, fearing a neighbour would see and call social services, she begged the child back in.

The kicker there was the reason why, for me. Though I may remember it wrong, if so, please correct!

MrDwhitey wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Why do you need a friendly learning environment? I submit that a teacher standing there with a taser and a sign that reads "get an A or get the stick," would do wonders.

As a trainee lecturer, we're taught that Fear and Stress actually inhibit learning to a degree by the way they affect the brain. Stress being the worst as it continues after the event. Annoyingly I can't find a nice comprehensive arcticle on it anywhere, though this may work http://www.livestrong.com/article/156872-how-fight-or-flight-affects-the-learning-of-children/ .

Though they also taught us we're not allowed to use the word fail, which I heavily disagreed with.

Out of curiosity, have you read about "The Tiger Mother"? It's a book where a Chinese mother is in America with her American husband, but insists on raising the students in a "Chinese" way. One event that stood out to me was how at the age of 3, the child was given a small piano and forced to repeat the mother exactly. When she inevitably refused, the mother put her outside into the cold and left her there. Eventually, fearing a neighbour would see and call social services, she begged the child back in.

The kicker there was the reason why, for me. Though I may remember it wrong, if so, please correct!

Exactly. Look what happened to the Tiger Mother's kids - at last word they are doing better any hippy tree hugger that cares to pipe up.

Last I heard the one broke completely and rejected her mothers plans, and went off to play Tennis (something -she- wanted to do), ignoring her mother.

I did last check half a year ago though, so new data will be needed. Off to google!

Edit: One's definately gone to Harvard.

New Warhammer 40k unit:

Lord of the Dance:
WS BS S T W I A Ld Sv
2 3 2 4 3 0 10 2

Special Attakcs:
1. Don't look me in the eyes.
2. Don't hurt me
3. Feel the rainbow.

I so want one!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Look I agree with someone up above that said the question is "why are they doing this or what's the agenda". Three answers come to mind.

1. To help kids identify with their own homosexuality and not feel burdened by it because other "great" homosexuals did just fine.
2. "Look, we are cool and do good things too so stop picking on us"
3. "Because we are also great at things we should be allowed to be treated as equals and have equal rights'

My response:
to 1: Although while helping little Johnny to identify with himself and other gay members of society may help his self esteem, I doubt it's going to do much to shield him from or improve the consequences of the general public opinion about homosexuality or the treatment he receives as a result to his lifestyle.
To 2: well doing things that are cool don't change who you are and what you believe in. Personally you could build the Taj Mahal but if you still act swishy and queer around me I'll call you "f_g" just like anyone else.
to 3: Well I believe everyone should be treated as equals so I agree with that part of their agenda because the world is a collection and conglomerate of many diff people that all need to be treated fairly and equally to improve human society. What I don't believe is "because we are equal therefore homosexuality is OK" ... No, I don't agree with that! Not in my eyes not in God's eyes. To love someone for who they are despite there flaws is God's nature, but to continue to allow them to behave in a sinful nature without repentance is not.
And Finally….. What the heck does all this have to do with HISTORY?


"shake and bake" :( suddenly takes on a whole new meaning! lolz

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why do you need a friendly learning environment? I submit that a teacher standing there with a taser and a sign that reads "get an A or get the stick," would do wonders.

Amusing, but not helpful to actually learn. The best way to make sure someone learns is to make them enjoy learning.

Do gooder nonsense that fits right along with the mantra "everyone's a winner!"

Learn or die. Chang's still building phased plasma rifles.

No, it's true. Psychological testing has proved that positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement.

it's just that negative reinforcement is more fun.

lol KilK

I believe positive reinforcement does work better, but I believe it's more practically useful for extracting information from terroists

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why do you need a friendly learning environment? I submit that a teacher standing there with a taser and a sign that reads "get an A or get the stick," would do wonders.

Amusing, but not helpful to actually learn. The best way to make sure someone learns is to make them enjoy learning.

Do gooder nonsense that fits right along with the mantra "everyone's a winner!"

Learn or die. Chang's still building phased plasma rifles.

No, it's true. Psychological testing has proved that positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement.

it's just that negative reinforcement is more fun.

Exactly

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Enjoy learning... with forced social lessons.

You're going to get forced social lessions whether you like it or not. Parents force social lessons, fellow students force social lessons, schools force social lessons (what do you mean I'm not allowed to beat Jimmy into a bloody pulp, but I want to!) regardless of if this particular one is included. Now if you had bothered reading, you'd note that I didn't entirely agree with a dedicated class on "gay history", though certainly it'd be fine alongside black history or hispanic history if it's offered. No, what matters is the attitude of the administrators and teachers and how they explain and enforce their rules and how much more positively they can effect the atmosphere of their classes.

Melissia wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Enjoy learning... with forced social lessons.

You're going to get forced social lessions whether you like it or not.

Only if they are mandated.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Enjoy learning... with forced social lessons.

You're going to get forced social lessions whether you like it or not.

Only if they are mandated.

It doesnt' matter if it's mandated or not. Even in a place entirely without rules you'll still get forced social lessons.

Is this going to be like the political correctness one? One person saying he never does it but is polite to people, one person saying even being polite to someone is political correctness?

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Enjoy learning... with forced social lessons.

You're going to get forced social lessions whether you like it or not.

Only if they are mandated.

It doesnt' matter if it's mandated or not. Even in a place entirely without rules you'll still get forced social lessons.

Not from the teacher.

So you suggest a bunch of bullies and a-holes set the social mores of the school instead of, you nkow, the ones who are supposed to be fething RUNNING the place?

Yeah, they kind of do.

Though, again, I'm not sure who the bullies and a-holes are. I assume it was Melissia shorthand for "the students."

Melissia wrote:So you suggest a bunch of bullies and a-holes set the social mores of the school instead of, you nkow, the ones who are supposed to be fething RUNNING the place?

Like they don't now?
Nice strawman argument. You're arguing indoctrination. I'm simply arguing that the manual code of behavior apply to everyone. Anything else is behaviorism nonsense. You don't need clases. you don't need touchy feely bs that doesn't work. You just need the hammer.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, they kind of do.

Though, again, I'm not sure who the bullies and a-holes are. I assume it was Melissia shorthand for "the students."

Yes vs. the bullies and a-holes who work for a union.

Melissia wrote:So you suggest a bunch of bullies and a-holes set the social mores of the school instead of, you nkow, the ones who are supposed to be fething RUNNING the place?

No, but how about those teachers and principles who are supposed to 'run the fething place' do so without legislators dropping pants and farting all over history teachers?

I am all for penalties for people who are violent. I am all for proper codes of conduct.
I don't see why we should brainwash kids to say gay=cool.
Look at drama club students. they get teased. Are we going to need Drama Month in history classes now?

This legislature is either pointless (abuse is already against the rules) or insidious (trying to undermine parents).

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
This legislature is either pointless (abuse is already against the rules) or insidious (trying to undermine parents).

Wrong. It could be both.

It's hard to "undermine the parents" when there's already so many horrible failures disguised as parents to begin with.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:No, but how about those teachers and principles who are supposed to 'run the fething place' do so without legislators dropping pants and farting all over history teachers?

Stop claiming I support the class in the OP when I repeatedly and specifically said that I don't.

Melissia wrote:Stop claiming I support the class in the OP when I repeatedly and specifically said that I don't.

My apologies.
I am now confused what exactly you are supporting then.

Are you saying this law is not good? Your statements about indoctrinating the students to welcome homosexuality appeared to support the purpose of the law.

I am not being snide. I am honestly apologizing if I misunderstood, though I am still a little doubtful that I actually did.